Posted on 04/23/2013 6:06:43 AM PDT by IbJensen
Big Government programs never seem to have any definite objectives. There are no victory conditions, no exit strategies, no test a program could fail that would result in its termination. This is one of the many reasons it is obscene for socialists to appropriate the language of business and “investment” to peddle their schemes. Investment is voluntary, and every investor envisions some level of failure that would prompt him to pull the plug on a bad investment. By contrast, government programs go on forever, we’re told it’s impossible to pass terminal judgment against them, and we are not allowed to withdraw our support.
It’s also foolish to use the language of “war” to describe these programs, although the Left loves to do so, because “the moral equivalent of war” fosters an atmosphere of crisis and obedience. Normal cost-benefit calculations are suspended when you’re fighting a war, and the high command must be obeyed without question. A republic of free people can handle these conditions during an actual war, because wars end. On the other hand, “wars” on social issues go on forever, and it is considered rude to ask about victory, retreat, or defeat.
For example: how is the War on Poverty going? We spent a trillion dollars on that, back when a trillion dollars was a lot of money for Uncle Sam. Actually, we’re spending almost a trillion dollars per year on means-tested federal and state welfare programs these days. Our reward for this is more poverty - poverty levels higher than they were in the late Sixties. Under the current definition, one in six Americans live in poverty… but even the definition of poverty is the subject of much debate, because it doesn’t include the enormous value of those War on Poverty welfare programs, which can leave an “impoverished” family with more disposable income than “middle class” families enjoy.
Does this constitute success or failure for large-scale government welfare programs? If the objective of the War on Poverty was to reduce poverty, it must be judged one of the most astonishing failures in American history. Poverty won in a rout. On the other hand, if the objective was to make poverty more comfortable, by raising the standard of living for poor Americans, the war could be viewed as an impressive success. Most of the world’s poor live in conditions of awful deprivation; America’s poor wrestle with chronic obesity.
Improving life for the desperately poor is not a trivial achievement. Americans are a generous people who don’t want to see anyone go sick or hungry. It is taken as a sign of national affluence that we can effectively abolish hunger and other deprivations. We are in general agreement that a social safety net should prevent tragic reversals of fortune from dropping hard-working people into a bottomless pit of despair.
But at the outset of the War on Poverty, Americans were not told that the objective of the program was to make long-term residence below the poverty line more comfortable. The idea was to reduce the number of people living there, by providing welfare assistance that would help them get back on their feet and begin taking care of themselves. As the old saying has it, the safety net was never supposed to be a hammock. Our parents and grandparents did not agree to pay fantastic sums of money to create a permanent dependency class, whose upper limits reside far inside territory formerly thought of as the “middle class.”
They certainly didn’t imagine they would be creating a system with such a voracious appetite for revenue that the growth-oriented tax cuts needed for healthy job creation would become unthinkable, completing the cycle of socialist degeneration by creating a reduced, weakened private sector that can’t generate enough jobs to raise the working poor out of dependency. We have a system that manufactures poverty, and a political class that profits from it. We never would have reached this state of affairs if the welfare state had been chartered under the same conditions as a true “investment” or military action: solid objectives on a firm timetable, with alternate plans and exit strategies to be activated in the event of failure.
The immigration reform debate has this aura of “government without objective,” as well. What are the true objectives of immigration reform? Most voters would probably rank “reducing illegal immigration” very high on that list, but that’s exactly where immigration reformers get vague.
It is a simple matter of common sense to suppose that creating a “pathway to citizenship” will bring a new wave of illegal immigrants looking for the on-ramp. There are already stories of invaders apprehended by the Border Patrol saying things like “Where do I go for my amnesty?” and “Obama’s gonna let me go.” And yet, comprehensive immigration reform features border security “triggers” that will never actually be triggered, and would result in nothing more than a round of committee meetings if they were.
Another objective most current citizens would assign to comprehensive immigration reform is the swift and smooth assimilation of new citizens, but instead they’ll be held for years in a quasi-citizen “provisional” status that seems more likely to produce further alienation – especially once leftist politicians begin milking it for influence, portraying every restriction placed on the provisional population as a hate crime. Instead of a “solution,” the Gang of Eight reforms look more like an open wound that will keep bleeding for a decade.
As with the War on Poverty, we must decide if we want to reduce the problem of illegal immigration, or make it less uncomfortable. The latter objective is far more open-ended, with success and failure subject to political interpretation. For that reason, it’s obviously the more attractive course to the political class.
It has slouched along like a drunk banging its collective head against lamp post and building and never getting anything right.
They point to a building full of legislation they've enacted that is completely unintelligible and incapable of being properly implemented because there's just too damned much of it.
The only objective that really matters is subjugation of, and control over, people. The multitudinous avalanche of government programs are just vehicles designed to achieve that end. Name one thing that the government has done to increase our liberties and freedom over the past few decades? I honestly can’t think of any.
If govt no longer self-corrects, then...?
Its true they never do shut down a government program no matter how expensive or even destructive to the end for which it was created.
As for immigration the immigrating Mexican and central american populations are NOT assimilating. Even their first, 2nd, and 3rd generations are not assimualting.
Instead they got 1 food in their old country which is right next door and anther food in ours. Instead of merging with our culture they insist that we merge with theirs.
In the border states bilingualism or Spanish is increasingly required job skill OVER English. Theses people are supplanting our existing population and taking over our state.
If you want anyone to assimilate you mush pressure them into assimilation by not making it easy to remain as they are. Otherwise your very soon going to see two or more countries here.
Its true they never do shut down a government program no matter how expensive or even destructive to the end for which it was created.
As for immigration the immigrating Mexican and central american populations are NOT assimilating. Even their first, 2nd, and 3rd generations are not assimualting.
Instead they got 1 food in their old country which is right next door and anther food in ours. Instead of merging with our culture they insist that we merge with theirs.
In the border states bilingualism or Spanish is increasingly required job skill OVER English. Theses people are supplanting our existing population and taking over our state.
If you want anyone to assimilate you mush pressure them into assimilation by not making it easy to remain as they are. Otherwise your very soon going to see two or more countries here.
“If govt no longer self-corrects, then...?”
It gets so bloated, expensive, corrupted, and oppressive that we as a population are no longer able to carry it.
At which point we will decline as a population until either replaced(as is happening now with Mexicans) or collapse into civil war as could only happen if we had a large and well positioned population of patriots.
The reason you can’t think of any is that there isn’t ONE!
Everything that pukes out of Washington, DC is designed to subjugate us and enmesh us in a myriad of these damned laws that these morons keep enacting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.